NYT coverage of 9/11 Commission Report -- Israel not mentioned

Here is my letter to the Times:

Letter to the Editors
New York Times

Dear Editors:


The 9/11 Commission Report is notable for what it leaves out, and tragically so. It leaves out virtually any reference to the state of Israel, the Arab / Israeli dispute, and the implications for American security.

The subject is mentioned only briefly in the body of the report in the following sentence:

"It (meaning their motivation for attacking America), is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel."

In the Executive Summary, the offending word, Israel, is scrubbed away. Here is the revised wording in the section meant for public consumption:

"Bin Ladin also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Islam's holiest sites, and against other U.S. policies in the Middle East."

Is it realy too much trouble for the Commissioners to spell out what those "grievances" are? Is there no room in this summary to mention the grievance that comes ready to hand for every angry young Muslim on the Arabian penninsula? And why can't the commissioners even consider that some aspect of those grievances may be valid??

If political leaders and the mass media refuse to allow a full and meaningful debate about the future of Israel, and various options for solving the long standing impasse, that will be an insult to American democracy and a dangerous travesty. The 9/11 Commission Report makes that travesty manifest.

I, for one, do not like it.

Hans Olsen

It's small enough to step on. Use your shoe.

BTW, when did you decide the "grievances" of a spoiled rich boy are the deciding factor in American foreign policy?

Osama wants me in a burkha. Should I buy one?

There is plenty of anger to go around on both sides of the Arab / Israeli dispute, and please believe me, I am not picking sides. Are you? I have good will for both sides. Can you say the same?

I simply want the subject to be on the table for discussion, debate, and resolution. I am not content to let the Likud wing of the Israeli political spectrum make all the major decisions about how to proceed in resolving this dispute.

The subject appears to be a great taboo. American politicians and media Bigfoots seem very reluctant to give due consideration to the valid grievances (some but not all of their grievances)on the Palestinian side of this dispute. It's all Israel, right or wrong -- and if the Muslim world doesn't like it, build the wall a little higher.

Now please don't misread me. I know and appreciate that the Israelis have valid grievances too, and I support the original U.N mandate for the existance of this Israeli state. I simply do not believe the current U.S. policy, largely in support of hard right Likud policies, is in the best interests of Israel or America.

And I think the American people should discuss and debate the Arab / Israeli dispute in the context of the War on Terrorism. I believe the 9/11 Commission does a great disservice in sweeping the Arab / Israeli dispute under the rug. Making it invisible won't make it go away. It is a tragic flaw in their work.

The failure to openly debate the real world options for resolving the Arab / Israeli dispute is a tragic mistake, and is of the same nature as the failure to have a full, open, honest, candid debate about the the War in Iraq.

Politicians and media Bigfoots were reluctant to fully enter into that debate in the lead-up to the war -- it was too politically dangerous and controversial. But it is a debate we should have had. We now need a debate about Israel and Palestine. If we don't have it, the Gods will weep for all the little children.